Egypt: Liberalism and Intervention

The rapidly evolving events in Egypt, following the equally important events
in Tunisia, should give liberals of all stripes hope. The voice of the people,
so long suppressed in the Arab world, is being heard in the streets. Protesters
originally limited their violence to attacks on government buildings and reports
have emerged of citizen groups protecting businesses and homes from looters.
But, now that pro-regime supporters have turned to violence to try clear Tahrir
Square, violence may well increase.

And as the violence increases, there will be more demands on the U.S. and Europe
to pressure the Mubarak regime. One could even see demands being made for more
active forms of intervention, perhaps corresponding with the Responsibility
to Protect doctrine. While such actions are highly unlikely, the idea of using
outside force to shepherd democracy has become more common over the last 20
years.

Even as violence increases, the world must remain cautious about trying to help
create democracy and/or protect human rights in such situations. The U.S. has
played this correctly for now; quiet and sometimes assertive diplomacy directly
to the regime, emphasizing the importance of respect for the people.

The situation in Egypt should help us to remember some important lessons about
intervention. In 1859, the political philosopher John Stuart Mill published
a short magazine article called "A Few Words on Non-Intervention."
Mill, the author of famous works of liberalism such as On
Liberty and The
Subjection of Women, argued that non-intervention must be a core principle
of international affairs. The only permissible reason for intervention was if
a large power invaded a country, another was justified in coming to the aid
of its people.

Mill was very clear that even though he felt that liberty and constitutional
government should be the norm for all, no one had the right to impose a particular
political order on others. Mill's liberalism was both domestic and international.

So what does this have to do with Egypt? In 2003, the Bush administration argued,
among other things, that intervention in Iraq was justified to promote freedom
and democracy in that country and throughout the region. Neoconservatives argued
that military force strongly supported this agenda. I must admit I felt some
sympathy with this argument. As a student of the Middle East and a believer
in liberalism, I warily embraced the idea that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein
would improve the lives of Iraqis and just might lead to a ripple effect.

Clearly, this position was fundamentally flawed. As the process of Iraqi constitution-making became more fraught and complicated, and as various political forces
turned to violence, it became clear that imposing a political system by force
leads to chaos and disenfranchisement of those people it was supposed to support.

Liberals like me can now see the wisdom of Mill's position. There has been no
great power or UN-led military effort to "free" Egypt. Instead, it
is the voice of individuals, indeed young people using social networking sites,
that has created this move toward greater freedom and democracy. It was only
when the people had enough—Kifaya in Arabic, the rallying cry of
various opposition movements over the past few years—that revolution truly
broke out.

The events in Egypt teach us other lessons about intervention. The United States
has, since the Carter administration, supported the Egyptian regime with vast
amounts of money, primarily for the military. This "intervention"
was designed to keep Egypt at peace with Israel and, at the time, away from
the influence of the Soviet Union. But this intervention is partly what the
Egyptian people are rejecting. Demands to oust Mubarak are coupled with signs
angrily rejecting the United States.

Importantly, though, these same signs demand what liberals should support—a
voice in politics and the protection of human rights. The two issues of most
concern to Egyptians on the streets are the flawed electoral structures of their
system and the creation of a network of "special courts" designed
to try "terrorists" who are usually nothing more than political activists
who question the regime. So, the rejection of Mubarak, of the United States,
and interference in their politics are really assertions of the kind of liberalism
that we should all support.

Finally, the Egyptian revolution can be a lesson for Mill as well. In the article
he published, Mill infamously did not apply his liberal principle of non-intervention
to communities that were not seen to be fully developed nation-states. That
is, he did not believe that Indians, Egyptians, Africans, or others who were
part of various empires of his day had the same rights to non-intervention as
French, Austrians or Prussians. Events in Egypt demonstrate that those who we
think are "the Other" wish for the kinds of freedoms and rights that
we all want.

If only Mill could see the liberalism erupting in Egypt right now, he might
well reconsider the exception to his rule. And the next time we claim that some
peoples, traditions, religions, or civilizations cannot achieve democracy, rights,
or freedom unless we help them, we might want to look to the power of peaceful
protest in the oldest civilization in the world.